[ It's not up to YOU to decide what an artist (in this case, the developer) puts into their game, as long as what they put into the game falls within the boundaries of the law. Whether it's a virtual handjob or not is irrelevant - if your morality is allowed to dictate what is in a game, then Jack Thompson's morality is going to be allowed to dictate what is in a game.

That's a fine rule for limiting censorship, but not for limiting criticism.

Quote

And I obviously realize none of you have called for the removal of the material from the game. And you all will be buying it and playing it despite your objections. But your attitudes are indicative of mainstream media who label games as juvenile and cringe whenever an adult topic is put into a game. Again, I find the hypocrisy amusing and neither of you have really explained it. How is running over innocent pedestrians within the boundaries of good taste again? How does it contribute to the storyline and overall artistry of the game? Why is violence getting a free pass here? How do you reconcile that double standard?

You're assuming that people do find the running over of pedestrians in good taste. But it's possibly because for whatever reason, violence in games is more frequently executed in a convincingly gritty fashion, whereas sex in games is generally executed in a mawkish and adolescent fashion. The first is as directed by Quentin Tarantino; the second is as directed by Beavis & Butthead.

everyone keeps saying it's done "poorly" how, praytell, is that so? You go up to a street corner(like in real life, not that i have experience. ). You pay money, once again in real life. You get a service. THE only thing different is your hp increases in the game. You could still run over that bitch in real life to get your cash back.

it is COMPLETELY OPTIONAL. NOT PART OF THE CORE GAMEPLAY AT ALL. You guys saying this is done wrong are just mind numbly confusing. It's done fine. You don't have to see it. You don't have to do it.

[ It's not up to YOU to decide what an artist (in this case, the developer) puts into their game, as long as what they put into the game falls within the boundaries of the law. Whether it's a virtual handjob or not is irrelevant - if your morality is allowed to dictate what is in a game, then Jack Thompson's morality is going to be allowed to dictate what is in a game.

That's a fine rule for limiting censorship, but not for limiting criticism.

Quote

And I obviously realize none of you have called for the removal of the material from the game. And you all will be buying it and playing it despite your objections. But your attitudes are indicative of mainstream media who label games as juvenile and cringe whenever an adult topic is put into a game. Again, I find the hypocrisy amusing and neither of you have really explained it. How is running over innocent pedestrians within the boundaries of good taste again? How does it contribute to the storyline and overall artistry of the game? Why is violence getting a free pass here? How do you reconcile that double standard?

You're assuming that people do find the running over of pedestrians in good taste. But it's possibly because for whatever reason, violence in games is more frequently executed in a convincingly gritty fashion, whereas sex in games is generally executed in a mawkish and adolescent fashion. The first is as directed by Quentin Tarantino; the second is as directed by Beavis & Butthead.

For instance, if I should say that I find PeteRock's "arguing on the internet" pic to be far more embarrassing, obnoxious, pathetic and juvenile than imaginary videogame hooker handjobs, I have not censored PeteRock in any manner that any reasonable adult should care about. Pete Rock is a big boy and can tell me to fuck off if he disagrees. If he can't handle me criticizing his chosen form of discourse he'd be better off wandering out of the marketplace of ideas before he falls down and gets an owie. But I know that PeteRock is far too FABULOUS to make that argument.

Fuck off.

Logged

Beauty is only skin deep. Which is why I take very good care of my skin.

For instance, if I should say that I find PeteRock's "arguing on the internet" pic to be far more embarrassing, obnoxious, pathetic and juvenile than imaginary videogame hooker handjobs, I have not censored PeteRock in any manner that any reasonable adult should care about. Pete Rock is a big boy and can tell me to love off if he disagrees. If he can't handle me criticizing his chosen form of discourse he'd be better off wandering out of the marketplace of ideas before he falls down and gets an owie. But I know that PeteRock is far too FABULOUS to make that argument.

Love off.

Now, I'm no Fed expert, but I think he was supporting your argument.

But in being no expert, I can't tell if you're being ironic or are in fact telling him to love off.

For instance, if I should say that I find PeteRock's "arguing on the internet" pic to be far more embarrassing, obnoxious, pathetic and juvenile than imaginary videogame hooker handjobs, I have not censored PeteRock in any manner that any reasonable adult should care about. Pete Rock is a big boy and can tell me to love off if he disagrees. If he can't handle me criticizing his chosen form of discourse he'd be better off wandering out of the marketplace of ideas before he falls down and gets an owie. But I know that PeteRock is far too FABULOUS to make that argument.

Love off.

Now, I'm no Fed expert, but I think he was supporting your argument.

But in being no expert, I can't tell if you're being ironic or are in fact telling him to love off.

Oh and Ridah. Let it go! Your thread is dead baby. dead!

I understood that he was supporting my argument and using my pictoral transgression as a poignant example. The "love" off comment was just a little sarcasm in response to his comments about my being a big boy and having the freedom to disagree. Perhaps it was yet another example of poor taste, but I was hoping to indicate my lack of seriousness with the fabulous smiley.

Fed was right.

Fed is always right.

I also sent him an apology just in case as I did appear to be out of line.

Quote

Ken,

Just as a follow-up, my "love" off comment in GT's GTA IV thread was a poor attempt at sarcasm with a sugarcookie smiley thrown in with the hopes that it would help to better convey that. However, if my comment was at all offensive or taken personally, that wasn't the intent and I apologize.

I understood that you were agreeing with me and used my photo transgression as an immediate and poignant example of your point. Yes, the photo was in poor taste and once again I've allowed an internet disagreement to frustrate me beyond the point of reason and I made a stupid mistake.

I should know better.

-Pete

« Last Edit: April 29, 2008, 02:01:00 PM by PeteRock »

Logged

Beauty is only skin deep. Which is why I take very good care of my skin.

waited by the liberty city statue with a bottle of baby oil and a a pair of surgeon's gloves for over an hour last night and no one showed up. was it the outfit? maybe i should rethink the whole hot pink cheerleader thing....

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

I understood that he was supporting my argument and using my pictoral transgression as a poignant example. The "love" off comment was just a little sarcasm in response to his comments about my being a big boy and having the freedom to disagree. Perhaps it was yet another example of poor taste, but I was hoping to indicate my lack of seriousness with the fabulous smiley.

Fed was right.

Fed is always right.

I also sent him an apology just in case as I did appear to be out of line.

Quote

Ken,

Just as a follow-up, my "love" off comment in GT's GTA IV thread was a poor attempt at sarcasm with a sugarcookie smiley thrown in with the hopes that it would help to better convey that. However, if my comment was at all offensive or taken personally, that wasn't the intent and I apologize.

I understood that you were agreeing with me and used my photo transgression as an immediate and poignant example of your point. Yes, the photo was in poor taste and once again I've allowed an internet disagreement to frustrate me beyond the point of reason and I made a stupid mistake.

I should know better.

-Pete

Whoa, you mean that you actually apologized for something you said on a message board? This is the internet, right?

For instance, if I should say that I find PeteRock's "arguing on the internet" pic to be far more embarrassing, obnoxious, pathetic and juvenile than imaginary videogame hooker handjobs, I have not censored PeteRock in any manner that any reasonable adult should care about. Pete Rock is a big boy and can tell me to love off if he disagrees. If he can't handle me criticizing his chosen form of discourse he'd be better off wandering out of the marketplace of ideas before he falls down and gets an owie. But I know that PeteRock is far too FABULOUS to make that argument.

Love off.

Now, I'm no Fed expert, but I think he was supporting your argument.

But in being no expert, I can't tell if you're being ironic or are in fact telling him to love off.

Oh and Ridah. Let it go! Your thread is dead baby. dead!

I understood that he was supporting my argument and using my pictoral transgression as a poignant example. The "love" off comment was just a little sarcasm in response to his comments about my being a big boy and having the freedom to disagree. Perhaps it was yet another example of poor taste, but I was hoping to indicate my lack of seriousness with the fabulous smiley.

Fed was right.

Fed is always right.

I also sent him an apology just in case as I did appear to be out of line.

Quote

Ken,

Just as a follow-up, my "love" off comment in GT's GTA IV thread was a poor attempt at sarcasm with a sugarcookie smiley thrown in with the hopes that it would help to better convey that. However, if my comment was at all offensive or taken personally, that wasn't the intent and I apologize.

I understood that you were agreeing with me and used my photo transgression as an immediate and poignant example of your point. Yes, the photo was in poor taste and once again I've allowed an internet disagreement to frustrate me beyond the point of reason and I made a stupid mistake.

I should know better.

-Pete

As I said in response, I knew exactly what Pete was doing with his "love you" response, so no apology was necessary.

For instance, if I should say that I find PeteRock's "arguing on the internet" pic to be far more embarrassing, obnoxious, pathetic and juvenile than imaginary videogame hooker handjobs, I have not censored PeteRock in any manner that any reasonable adult should care about. Pete Rock is a big boy and can tell me to love off if he disagrees. If he can't handle me criticizing his chosen form of discourse he'd be better off wandering out of the marketplace of ideas before he falls down and gets an owie. But I know that PeteRock is far too FABULOUS to make that argument.

Love off.

Now, I'm no Fed expert, but I think he was supporting your argument.

But in being no expert, I can't tell if you're being ironic or are in fact telling him to love off.

Oh and Ridah. Let it go! Your thread is dead baby. dead!

I understood that he was supporting my argument and using my pictoral transgression as a poignant example. The "love" off comment was just a little sarcasm in response to his comments about my being a big boy and having the freedom to disagree. Perhaps it was yet another example of poor taste, but I was hoping to indicate my lack of seriousness with the fabulous smiley.

Fed was right.

Fed is always right.

I also sent him an apology just in case as I did appear to be out of line.

Quote

Ken,

Just as a follow-up, my "love" off comment in GT's GTA IV thread was a poor attempt at sarcasm with a sugarcookie smiley thrown in with the hopes that it would help to better convey that. However, if my comment was at all offensive or taken personally, that wasn't the intent and I apologize.

I understood that you were agreeing with me and used my photo transgression as an immediate and poignant example of your point. Yes, the photo was in poor taste and once again I've allowed an internet disagreement to frustrate me beyond the point of reason and I made a stupid mistake.

I should know better.

-Pete

As I said in response, I knew exactly what Pete was doing with his "love you" response, so no apology was necessary.

Looks like my initial impressions were correct that you were being Ironic. I apologize for not being more sure of the irony. I also apologize to Fed for not understanding the non-irony in the ironic irony of it all. In any case, you should both go love off

I wanna thank Rockstar for making that last mission an f'ing nightmare. I've tried 8 times to finish and 8 times i've failed. mostly on that f'ing helicopter. I seriously wanna throw my f'ing controller through the f'ing tv screen right now. as it stands, i have a feeling i'm just going to trade it in before finishing it. either that or just never f'ing finish it. why does it have to be an f'ing multi part mission with no f'ing save anywhere during it??

...i need a drink.

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

I wanna thank Rockstar for making that last mission an f'ing nightmare. I've tried 8 times to finish and 8 times i've failed. mostly on that f'ing helicopter. I seriously wanna throw my f'ing controller through the f'ing tv screen right now. as it stands, i have a feeling i'm just going to trade it in before finishing it. either that or just never f'ing finish it. why does it have to be an f'ing multi part mission with no f'ing save anywhere during it??

...i need a drink.

yup,last mission was a bitch...but overall,easiest GTA to date(and first GTA i finished)

FINALLY got it. Took me about 23 tries. Cripes was that frustrating. I promised myself I was trading the game in for something else right before my last (and successful) attempt.

Spoiler for Hiden:

now do the other option,LOL

I actually might!

Man, looking back at this weekend's gaming sessions with GTA I have to laugh. I was so frustrated at one point that I put down my controller after one failed attempt, calmly walked into the kitchen, poured myself a glass of water...then threw it back in sink while cussing up a storm.

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

FINALLY got it. Took me about 23 tries. Cripes was that frustrating. I promised myself I was trading the game in for something else right before my last (and successful) attempt.

Spoiler for Hiden:

now do the other option,LOL

I actually might!

Man, looking back at this weekend's gaming sessions with GTA I have to laugh. I was so frustrated at one point that I put down my controller after one failed attempt, calmly walked into the kitchen, poured myself a glass of water...then threw it back in sink while cussing up a storm.

I believe "revenge" was the easier of the endings (the second half of the mission is slightly, but significantly different). Well, the last mission, because the actual "revenge" mission I found harder than the "deal" mission. So if you did the "deal" ending, then you shouldn't find the final mission that hard to repeat. But you'll have to do the actual "revenge" mission, which is pretty hard, but nothing more than an extended firefight.